Rylands v. Fletcher Doctrine for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Read the following passage and answer the questions.

The strict principle of law is: sics utere tuo ut alienum non laedas; it means, everyone must so use his own as not to do damage to another. When this maxim is applied to landed property, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show not only that he has sustained damage but also that the defendant has caused it by going beyond what is necessary in order to enable him to have the natural use of his own land.

The owner or occupier of the land may lawfully use it for any purpose for which it might, in the ordinary course of the employment of land, be used. And for such natural uses of land, an owner will not, in the absence of negligence, be liable, though damage results to the neighbor. But, for any non-natural user, such as the introduction to the land of something which, in the natural condition of the

land, is not upon it, he is liable if damage results to his neighbour. A person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in and at his peril; and if he does so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. This is known as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (also known as "the wild beast theory”. Indian Law: It has been held in several cases that the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher applies in India.

Question: A farmer wants an aggressive and intimidating dog and asks X, a fellow farmer to lend him his pitbull dog, which proceeds to kill Q’s chickens. Decide.

Read the following passage and answer the questions.

The strict principle of law is: sics utere tuo ut alienum non laedas; it means, everyone must so use his own as not to do damage to another. When this maxim is applied to landed property, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show not only that he has sustained damage but also that the defendant has caused it by going beyond what is necessary in order to enable him to have the natural use of his own land.

The owner or occupier of the land may lawfully use it for any purpose for which it might, in the ordinary course of the employment of land, be used. And for such natural uses of land, an owner will not, in the absence of negligence, be liable, though damage results to the neighbor. But, for any non-natural user, such as the introduction to the land of something which, in the natural condition of the

land, is not upon it, he is liable if damage results to his neighbour. A person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in and at his peril; and if he does so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. This is known as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (also known as "the wild beast theory”. Indian Law: It has been held in several cases that the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher applies in India.

Question: The Bio Gas plant with advanced safety measures was installed for town residents but due to increasing weather and lack of rain the vessels had leakages and the gas had escaped from a rupture and affected the crops in nearby fields. The farmers filed suit for damages-

Passage VII

The strict principle of law is: sics utere tuo ut alienum non laedas; it means, everyone must so use his own as not to do damage to another. When this maxim is applied to landed property, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show not only that he has sustained damage but also that the defendant has caused it by going beyond what is necessary in order to enable him to have the natural use of his own land.

The owner or occupier of the land may lawfully use it for any purpose for which it might, in the ordinary course of the employment of land, be used. And for such natural uses of land, an owner will not, in the absence of negligence, be liable, though damage results to the neighbor. But, for any non-natural user, such as the introduction to the land of something which, in the natural condition of the

land, is not upon it, he is liable if damage results to his neighbour. A person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in and at his peril; and if he does so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. This is known as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (also known as "the wild beast theory”. Indian Law: It has been held in several cases that the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher applies in India.

Question:

Any entity charged with providing a service to society from government or statutory provision is-

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.

The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Rylands v Fletcher. In the year 1868, the principle of strict liability states that any person who keeps hazardous substances on his premises will be held responsible if such substances escape the premises and cause any damage. Going into the facts of the case, F had a mill on his land, and to power the mill, F built a reservoir on his land. Due to some accident, the water from the reservoir flooded the coal mines owned by R. Subsequently, R filed a suit against F. The Court held that the defendant built the reservoir at his own risk, and in course of it, if any accident happens then the defendant will be liable for the accident and escape of the material.

Going by the principle laid in this case, it can be said that if a person brings on his land and keeps some dangerous thing, and such a thing is likely to cause some damage if it escapes then such person will be answerable for the damage caused. The person from whose property such a substance escaped will be held accountable even when he hasn’t been negligent in keeping the substance in his premises. The liability is imposed on him not because there is any negligence on his part, but the substance kept on his premises is hazardous and dangerous. Based on this judicial pronouncement, the concept of strict liability came into being. There are some essential conditions that should be fulfilled to categorise a liability under the head of strict liability.

The rule of absolute liability, in simple words, can be defined as the rule of strict liability minus the exceptions. In India, the rule of absolute liability evolved in the case of MC Mehta v Union of India. This is one of the most landmark judgments which relates to the concept of absolute liability.

The facts of the case are that some oleum gas leaked in a particular area in Delhi from the industry. Due to the leakage, many people were affected. The Apex Court then evolved the rule of absolute liability on the rule of strict liability and stated that the defendant would be liable for the damage caused without considering the exceptions to the strict liability rule.

Question:

X owns a large estate that has a huge orchard of various types of plants. Y owns a neighbouring farm and owns 5 goats. One night, one of Y’s goats enters X’s orchard and eats leaves and flowers of a poisonous weed plant. Decide the liability.

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.

The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Rylands v Fletcher. In the year 1868, the principle of strict liability states that any person who keeps hazardous substances on his premises will be held responsible if such substances escape the premises and cause any damage. Going into the facts of the case, F had a mill on his land, and to power the mill, F built a reservoir on his land. Due to some accident, the water from the reservoir flooded the coal mines owned by R. Subsequently, R filed a suit against F. The Court held that the defendant built the reservoir at his own risk, and in course of it, if any accident happens then the defendant will be liable for the accident and escape of the material.

Going by the principle laid in this case, it can be said that if a person brings on his land and keeps some dangerous thing, and such a thing is likely to cause some damage if it escapes then such person will be answerable for the damage caused. The person from whose property such a substance escaped will be held accountable even when he hasn’t been negligent in keeping the substance in his premises. The liability is imposed on him not because there is any negligence on his part, but the substance kept on his premises is hazardous and dangerous. Based on this judicial pronouncement, the concept of strict liability came into being. There are some essential conditions that should be fulfilled to categorise a liability under the head of strict liability.

The rule of absolute liability, in simple words, can be defined as the rule of strict liability minus the exceptions. In India, the rule of absolute liability evolved in the case of MC Mehta v Union of India. This is one of the most landmark judgments which relates to the concept of absolute liability.

The facts of the case are that some oleum gas leaked in a particular area in Delhi from the industry. Due to the leakage, many people were affected. The Apex Court then evolved the rule of absolute liability on the rule of strict liability and stated that the defendant would be liable for the damage caused without considering the exceptions to the strict liability rule.

Question:

X owns a small pet shop which he runs on lease in a small locality. Y is an animal enthusiast who is planning an NGO for stray dog's adoption. Y opens his office just 500 metres away from X’s shop. This causes the majority of the people to adopt dogs, and this leads to X facing a loss in business which ultimately led him to shut his shop and relocate. X now files a suit against him for damages. Decide.

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.

Going by the principle laid in the case of Rylands v Fletcher, it can be said that if a person brings on his land and keeps some dangerous thing, and such a thing is likely to cause some damage if it escapes, then such person will be answerable for the damaged caused. The person from whose property such substance escaped will be held accountable even when he hasn’t been negligent in keeping the substance in his premises. The liability is imposed on him not because there is any negligence on his part but the substance kept on his premises is hazardous and dangerous. Based on this judicial pronouncement, the concept of strict liability came into being. There are some essential conditions that should be fulfilled to categorize a liability under the head of strict liability. There are some exceptions to the rule of strict liability as Plaintiff’s fault, Act of God, Act of the third party, Consent of Plaintiff (Violenti non fit injuria).

According to the rule of absolute liability, if any person is engaged in an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity, and if any harm is caused to any person due to any accident which occurred while carrying out such inherently dangerous and hazardous activity, then the person who is carrying out such activity will be held absolutely liable. The exception to the strict liability rule also wouldn’t be considered. The rule laid down in the case of MC Mehta v UOI was also followed by the Supreme Court while deciding the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. To ensure that victims of such accidents get quick relief through insurance, the Indian Legislature passed the Public Liability Insurance Act in the year 1991.

Question:

X is a guest of Y. X came to Y place for a night stay and in the midnight phone of Y blastedblast on the bed, which caused grievous hurt to X. Discuss the liability of Y.

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.

Going by the principle laid in the case of Rylands v Fletcher, it can be said that if a person brings on his land and keeps some dangerous thing, and such a thing is likely to cause some damage if it escapes, then such person will be answerable for the damaged caused. The person from whose property such substance escaped will be held accountable even when he hasn’t been negligent in keeping the substance in his premises. The liability is imposed on him not because there is any negligence on his part but the substance kept on his premises is hazardous and dangerous. Based on this judicial pronouncement, the concept of strict liability came into being. There are some essential conditions that should be fulfilled to categorize a liability under the head of strict liability. There are some exceptions to the rule of strict liability as Plaintiff’s fault, Act of God, Act of the third party, Consent of Plaintiff (Violenti non fit injuria).

According to the rule of absolute liability, if any person is engaged in an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity, and if any harm is caused to any person due to any accident which occurred while carrying out such inherently dangerous and hazardous activity, then the person who is carrying out such activity will be held absolutely liable. The exception to the strict liability rule also wouldn’t be considered. The rule laid down in the case of MC Mehta v UOI was also followed by the Supreme Court while deciding the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. To ensure that victims of such accidents get quick relief through insurance, the Indian Legislature passed the Public Liability Insurance Act in the year 1991.

Question:

There was a leakage of poisonous gas from a factory, which resulted the death of several people. What will be the lability of factory’s owner?

What are the essential ingredients for ‘Rylands v. Fletcher’ doctrine ?